Understanding Research Integrity and Ethics in Academic Settings
Research integrity is crucial in maintaining professional standards and truthfulness in academic work. This article discusses the definitions of research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the link between ethics and integrity. It covers key aspects such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, good research practices, and transparency in research processes.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Research Integrity The good, the bad and the ugly! Dr Maura Hiney, Health Research Board Ireland
Content Some definitions Research Integrity in context Evidence on incidence and prevalence The failure of self-regulation and peer review The consequences of misconduct
Research integrity relates to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigour, and to the accuracy and truth of the research record in publications and elsewhere.
Research Misconduct Fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (Common federal definition)
Definitions of FFP Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them Falsification: manipulating research processes or changing or omitting data Plagiarism: appropriation of another person s ideas, research results or words without giving appropriate credit See ESF Code of Practice
Questionable research practices Personal misconduct (intimidation, harassment, discrimination, misuse of funds ): undesirable or unacceptable, but not scientific misconduct Bad research practices (data management, research procedures, publication related misconduct ); objectionable, harmful, but not basic infringement of scientific integrity Minor misdemeanours (tampering with data, cutting cornes, omitting an unwelcome observation .); unacceptable infringements of scientific integrity See OECD List
The link between ethics and integrity RESEARCH INTEGRITY Research Ethics Publication Ethics Good Research Practice Proposal Research/ Experimentation Analysis Dissemination Ensures that: the research is justifiable the benefits outweigh the risks the methodology is sound participants will be adequately protected Ensures: that the research is reliable and objective impartiality and independence openness and honestly in analysis and reporting upholding of duty of care to participants and colleagues Ensures transparency: in declaring funding sources fairness in attributing authorship honestly in reporting results and conclusions ownership of ideas and intellectual property
The context of research integrity A steady rise in scientific productivity
The context of research integrity A steady rise in scientific publications and the pressure to publish
The context of research integrity Increasing annual expenditure on R&D 1 of 100 public dollars in US spent on health research In Europe approx. 1.75% of total government expenditure on R&D (GERD) Research is a very much a public activity
Science and society are linked Science and society are interconnected: the public, as taxpayers, are major supporters and funders of research public support is provided on the understanding that society will benefit from research But continued public support requires credibility and trust: Eurobarometer Survey (2010) 58% of Europeans did nottrust scientists to be truthful about controversial issues Climategate rigour and honesty of research not in doubt but the CRU failed to display the proper degree of openness and transparency
Excellent research is done by honest researchers so why all the fuss about research integrity?
Assumptions about misconduct 1. Serious misconduct in research is rare 2. Self-regulation keeps improper behavior in check 3. Research misconduct is difficult to detect 4. Research misconduct cannot be prevented 5. Apart from misconduct, standards for integrity in research are high Assumptions were based on common perceptions, not empirical evidence All five can be questioned! Slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Assumption 1: Rarity How common are incidents of research misconduct? 2002 Survey by NIH in US Survey of 7,760 mid- and early-career scientists All NIH-supported 3,247 respondents; response rates: - 52% (mid-career), 43% (early-career) Asked them whether they had ever witnessed or participated in FFP or questionable research practices Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: Self reported 100 80 60 40 20 0 FFP Data Methods Policy Use of funds Outside influence Peer review Credit Cutting corners Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: Witnessed in others 100 80 60 40 20 0 FFP Data Methods Policy Use of funds Outside influence Peer review Credit Cutting corners Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Was that a once-off observation? Geggie, J Med Ethics (2001) Survey of 305 new medical consultants in UK (64% responded) o 55.7% observed misconduct (FFP lower) o 5.7% committed misconduct in the past o 18% would commit in future o 17% had research ethics training Gardner et al, Contemporary Clinical Trials (2005) Survey of 549 authors of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Cochrane database from 1998-2001 (64% response) 1% reported target article misrepresented the research 5% reported fabrication in a study they had participated in over the last 10 years 17% knew personally of fabrication in a study over the last 10 years Slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Meta-analysis of survey data Fanelli, PLOS-One (2009) Systematic review of 21 surveys on levels of misconduct over past 25 years (pooled weighted averages) Own behaviour o 1.97% admitted fabrication, falsification or data modification at least once o 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices Witnessed in colleagues o 14.1% witnessed fabrication, falsification or data modification at least once o 72% witnessed other questionable research practices Misconduct reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others
2010 survey of intervening in misconduct Catalogue of wrongs (2,193 incidences 84%) Fabrication or falsification Questionable publication practices (such as 'guest' authors) Plagiarism Creating an unsuitable work environment (e.g. sexual harassment) Incompetence (e.g. inappropriate use of statistics) Carelessness (e.g. sloppy record keeping) Dishonesty (e.g. misuse of grant funds) Intentional bias (e.g. rigging a method to favour an outcomes) Failure to follow rules (e.g. ignoring ethical directives) Inadequate supervision of research assistants/students 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Incidents reported Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2010) survey of 2,599 NIH PIs
Question How can misconduct be that prevalent, if the checks and balances work? If someone changes data, makes it up or copies it from another scientist, surely that will be spotted by colleagues, peer reviewers or journal editors?
Not necessarily! Self-regulation keeps improper behavior in check? o Darsee published 100 papers with falsified data over 14 years o Staple published fraudulent data between 2004-2010 Research misconduct is difficult to detect? o Hwang could not have completed work in the time reported o Sudb , trial not started, patients did not exists, data repeated o Reuben s data, described as pure fiction , highly cited Research misconduct cannot be prevented? o Sch n s co-author/mentor did not check experiments or data o Poehlman s MD co-author did not oversee clinical results Part of slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
It is not just about protecting the scientific record Werner Bezwoda (1995) Key trial of the effectiveness of high dose chemo and bone marrow transplants for breast cancer based on faked data Over 30,000 women underwent expensive, debilitating and often fatal transplants (20%) Study protocol written 9 years after the study began Trial deaths not reported Not discovered until 2001 Andrew Wakeman (1998) Seminar paper on the link between MMR vaccination, gastrointestinal problems and autism Without vaccination incidence of whooping cough, measles, meningitis greatly increased and many childhood fatalities Timelines falsified to create the appearance of cause and effect in study subjects (12 children!) Not uncovered for 13 years
Forensic science misconduct Data courtesy of the Innocence Project
Collateral damage to careers There is collateral damage to the careers of post- doctoral and other junior researchers working with or publishing with someone who has been found guilty of misconduct. A young scientist s reputation is tethered to the successes and failures of their mentor, and when that mentor is found guilty of misconduct, that disciple will also be viewed with suspicion. It can take five to seven years to recover from an association with misconduct, even if a researcher is totally innocent of any wrong-doing* *Observation courtesy of Prof John Ioannidis, Stanford University
Public response to misconduct Relationship between number of media reports on research misconduct, and public confidence in science and scientists 100 90 Medical - confidence 80 70 Medical - news reports 60 Humanities - confidence 50 Humanities - news reports 40 Social sciences - confidence 30 20 Social sciences - news reports 10 Linear (Social sciences - news reports) 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Vetenskap & Allm nhet (2014) - based on 356 news reports on research misconduct
Misconduct has consequences Not a victimless crime It damages the research record by contaminating it with fraudulent data that may be difficult to eradicate It hurts patients, who may receive incorrect/fatal treatments It hurts researchers and disciplines, which are tarnished by fraudulent scientists in their midst It hurts the public, whose faith in research is undermined It squanders public money and the efforts of some of the worlds best minds More than anything, it hurts science, when you can t trust the data presented or the person presenting it
What about whistle-blowers? Sometimes seen as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability More often viewed unfairly as "traitors" or "defectors" Probable that many people do not consider blowing the whistle because of fear of retaliation or of losing their credibility or job Key to a fully functioning RI system so MUST be protected
Everyone needs to be responsible Outcomes of interventions* *Respondents could select more than one answer and report on multiple incidents Intervener felt no negative fallout Suspect did nothing to correct the problem Suspect corrected the problem Suspect denied the problem Event was elevated to a local office Suspect understood but couldn't correctproblem Intervener suffered emotional costs only Intervener was treated with disrespect Intervener gained respect Suspect did not respond tointervention Event was elevated to fedral level Intervener felt career was jeopardized Intervener suffered loss of reputation Intervener suffered social costs Intervener had no support from institution Intervener feared legal action Concern turned out to be unwarranted 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of interveners who reported this outcome Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2010) - based on 2,193 reported incidences
Is it possible to change the culture? Crain et al, Sci Eng Ethics (2012) Survey of NIH researcher perceptions of research climate in their university/department AND frequency of FFP/QRP (N=1,267; 50%) Research climate predictors: regulatory quality, RI support, integrity norms, integrity inhibitors, advisor-advisee relations, expectations etc. Key Finding The more positive the organisational research climate, the higher the likelihood of desirable research practices and the lower the likelihood of undesirable research practices The findings are clear that misconduct is not about dealing with a few "bad apples" but about tackling organisational research climate issues You cannot have excellent research if you do not have a climate that fosters research integrity
References Gerald P. Koocher & Patricia Keith-Spiegel (2010) Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud. Nature. 466, 438-440 Supplementary material: http://www.ethicsresearch.com/images/Method_Results_July_22_2010_a.pdf Danielle Fanelli (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738 D Greegie (2001) A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Medical Ethics, 27:344-346 Gardner W, Lidz CW, Hartwig KC (2005) Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 26(2):244-51
